Swearing Vengeance
The Gospel of Matthew • Sermon • Submitted • Presented
0 ratings
· 12 viewsNotes
Transcript
Introduction
Introduction
In 1 Samuel 14, Saul, who is king of Israel at the time, makes a rash vow. The Israelites have already been hard pressed. Saul fears them giving up on the battle and going each their separate ways. This is one of the first times Israel as a whole is united together to make war under their first king. So, Saul makes a vow. 1 Samuel 14:24
And the men of Israel had been hard pressed that day, so Saul had laid an oath on the people, saying, “Cursed be the man who eats food until it is evening and I am avenged on my enemies.” So none of the people had tasted food.
So, basically, “you can’t eat until we win.” Saul is just an interesting character. He seems rather ignorant of the Old Testament law. And notice also the condition for this vow, “until it is evening. . .and I am avenged on my enemies.” This is the self-centered nature of Saul. Saul is not ruling for the benefit of his people or in service to his God, but in service to himself. He does not make the vow to help the people or win the battle but to serve himself. Winning a battle requires food, which Saul neglects his people.
But Jonathan who started this whole battle and led people to a victory does not know about the vow. He dips his staff into a honey comb and tastes a bit of the honey and is revived. Immediately the people around him tell him about the vow. Jonathan is disappointing to hear this vow.
The Israelites defeat Philistines for around 20 miles that day, all without food. Then finally, they begin the pounce upon the spoil and eat the meat with the blood in it. Saul had to be told this was wrong and puts it to an end. Then Saul wants to continue to chase the Philistines into the night. As he makes his war plans, a priest asks, “Shouldn’t we inquire of the Lord?”
So they inquire of the Lord, but there is no answer. Saul discerns that someone must have sinned. And he says with some foreshadowing, 1 Sam 14:39
For as the Lord lives who saves Israel, though it be in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die.” But there was not a man among all the people who answered him.
And lo and behold, it is his son Jonathan who “sinned.” He ate the honey. And Saul, instead of recanting his rash vow, or recognizing his son did not even know about the vow when he tasted the honey says, 1 Sam 14:44
And Saul said, “God do so to me and more also; you shall surely die, Jonathan.”
David was a man after God’s heart. Saul wanted whatever he wanted and used God to get it. Saul’s rash vow to serve himself brings him to the point where he’s about to murder his own son unjustly. The people, however, stand up and intervene.
The two sections of the sermon on the mount we are looking at today focus on vows and vengeance. Saul made silly vows in order to get personal vengeance. This is the same way he will treat David, God’s chosen king, in the future. This attitude of vows and vengeance involved living in a universe with self at the center rather than God.
Taking Oaths
Taking Oaths
“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.
As a reminder, Jesus is not attempting to usurp Old Testament authority, but is going against the interpretation of his contemporaries. The people would have heard the law expounded by Pharisees and scribes. We know from Matt. 23, that they made a loophole for vows: one could swear by the temple and not be bound, but if swearing by the gold of the temple he has to be bound to do it.
The Old Testament law says:
You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.
“If you make a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay fulfilling it, for the Lord your God will surely require it of you, and you will be guilty of sin. But if you refrain from vowing, you will not be guilty of sin. You shall be careful to do what has passed your lips, for you have voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God what you have promised with your mouth.
What Jesus says in v. 33 seems to be a summary of these laws the Pharisees or scribes would articulate. It seems as though the teachers of the law would use the phrase “to the Lord” as a loophole to not fulfill certain vows. It’s like keeping your fingers crossed when shaking your hands on a deal.
It seems as though the first century teachers of the law had a whole system of how to which vows ought to be kept and which vows one didn’t have to keep. If one swears by heaven, earth or sun, they are exempt from having to keep. Or by a prophet or book of the Bible, they are exempt. Another strange example is that if one swore by Jerusalem he was exempt, but if he swore toward Jerusalem he was obligated to keep it.
Jesus cuts through all this silliness. He says there in vv. 34-35 that heaven, earth, and Jerusalem—these things people try to use as loopholes—are so closely associated with God that it’s the same thing as swearing by God. In v. 36, he condemns swearing by our own heads.
And we may thing, “Well, what’s wrong with that? I have control over my own head, don’t I?” And this is precisely Jesus’s point: it’s God who is sovereign over our heads. We don’t have the ability to make one hair white or black.
Because what we are really saying when we make oaths is a curse. “May the sun be destroyed if I do not fulfill such and such.” Or “May I be beheaded if I do not fulfill my word.” Cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye. Jesus’s point:
Using God for oaths usurps God’s authority.
When we say, “I swear by God, by my head, by whatever” what we are saying is “God is on my puppet string and will do my bidding if I don’t fulfill my promise.” But we forget, heaven, earth, our own head, are not under our authority, they are under God’s. We have no right to order God to destroy any of those things.
During the fourth crusade, the crusaders were promised by a priest the “pope’s indulgence” for going out on a holy war. Essentially, no matter what these crusaders did, as long as they went on the crusade, they believed they would go to heaven. They used God to convince men to go to war.
And this is really what these oaths are all about: using God to manipulate other people. Think about it: Jesus was living in a day where people would say, “I swear by the holy temple that I will do such and such,” with no intent to keep such a promise because it was by the temple and not the gold of the temple. Now why would people purposefully make an oath they never intend on keeping?
Taking oaths had just become a game of manipulation and deception to preserve and exalt self: where people use God to get what they selfishly want. Jesus shows the heart of this manipulation game. Matthew 5:37 “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.”
Speech marked by constant honesty has no need for oaths.
I want you to consider for a moment the teaching of the Qu’ran. This is Surah 8:58, “If you [have reason to] fear from a people betrayal, throw [their treaty] back to them, [putting you] on equal terms. Indeed, Allah does not like traitors.”
Notice the inferior ethic of Islam. Muslims are not obliged to keep covenants or treaties with non-Muslims if they perceive bad faith on the part of the unbelievers. Jesus’s teaching is quite the opposite. He teaches that one’s character and speech should be marked by such honesty and reliability that there is no need for frivolous oaths.
That really gets to the heart of the matter: honesty and reliability. Jesus is not against all oaths and vows. The law itself is not against all oaths and vows. However, the when the main point of a vow was to mask deception, it is from evil. When frivolous vows devalued the truth of ordinary speech, it is from evil. When vows misused God’s authority, it is from evil.
Jesus often affirms the truthfulness of his own speech: “Truly truly I say unto you.”
Jesus testified under oath in Matt. 26:63-64.
God himself uses oaths.
For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, “Surely I will bless you and multiply you.” And thus Abraham, having patiently waited, obtained the promise. For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.
Meditate on that for a moment. God cannot lie. Then why does he take an oath? For our sakes. To show to us all the more that we have hope.
Sermon On The Mount: Restoring Christ's Message to the Modern Church Dishonesty (Matt 5:33–37)
Jesus prohibited the use of misleading oaths, but he did not intend to prohibit all use of oaths. Oaths in court, marital vows, oaths of office, and the use of other oaths on solemn occasions to emphasize one’s truthfulness comport both with biblical teaching and Christian practice.
Here again we could come away with people saying, “I will never take an oath ever.” And even some such as the Anabaptist will not testify under oath. The point of Christ’s teaching is not to abolish the oath, but to abolish the selfish deception and manipulation behind it.
We live in a day and age where people will say and do anything—even the most radical things—just to build their platform. Just turn on the news and you can hear lie after lie after lie. Maybe today, in our scientific age, the manipulative tactic is not making the oath, but the “fact check.” A problem in society will be brought to a lot of people’s attention. Then the media will quickly “fact check.” And then it goes in stages: 1. There is no problem here, look away; 2. Okay well there is a problem, but it’s not a big deal. 3. Actually what you say is a problem is a good thing. 4. You are racist for saying that was a problem.
In a world of A.I. deep fakes, disinformation, and fact checks, it’s hard to know what truth is. And in a culture that’s given up on God, you don’t hear oaths that much any more, you just hear the mantra “trust the science.” “Actually, that was fact checked. . .”
And “fact-checking” has become a deception game to. “So-and-so politician said that such and such crime was spread across the whole city. . . he was wrong. . .it only affected half the population.” But people don’t actually read the silly fact check, they just see the statement was “fact-checked” and assume it was a wholesale lie. It’s a deception game making mince meat of the English language to further people’s selfish agendas. It’s all just another form of manipulation.
We used to live in a society where integrity and honesty were the bedrock of journalism. Now its bias and manipulation. There’s not a lot of sources of information you can trust anymore. But there is God’s truth. God cannot lie, and cannot be dishonest. Look to his word, reflect on it, meditate on it. Let it soak into your mind and form who you are. Then you can fact check the fact checkers. When your mind is washed by the word, when you are in step with the Spirit, you can discern truth from lie.
Vengeance
Vengeance
But its not easy when those lies are coming right at you. “Christian nationalism” is in the headlines all over the place. Here’s one from NPR last month, “References to God and Christianity are sprinkled throughout American life. Our money has "In God We Trust" printed on it. Most presidents have chosen to swear their oath of office on the Bible.
Christian nationalists want more.”
Dun dun dun. Isn’t that foreboding? Logic and argumentation for gay rights, abortion rights, and the like don’t work because it’s not logical or good. So how can we further those agendas? Vilify anyone who stands against it. We will call them racist, misogynist, homophobic bigots. And not only all those things, but they also want to take over the country and stone homos to death!
It’s easy for us to hear all this and want to retaliate. Maybe we want to engage in name calling too. But listen to Christ’s words.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
Now, this guidance you see in Ex. 21:23-25. And here some people argue Jesus outright contradicted the Old Testament. But I don’t believe that’s the case at all. Remember, Jesus is not contradicting the law, but the teachers of the law who misinterpret.
The original intention of this law was not to be applied on the individual level, but by the courts of laws, the judges themselves. It’s not as though you lived in the Old Testament times and someone cut off your finger that you right there and then cut off theirs right back. That would be a society of anarchy, not a rule of law. No, any situation would go thought the legal means.
Think about when the people lived in the wilderness, any dispute went through Moses. So much so that it was too much for him. So he set up elders for each household to decide such disputes. There was a rule of law, not anarchy.
The point of this law was so that the court would not be too lenient or too harsh in giving a punishment. It was supposed to be a guide for the community to seek justice rather than fro an individual to seek revenge. We could easily see the same perversion of this command when we get back at someone and quip, “Eye for and eye,” to justify our vengeance.
But Jesus commands, “do not resist the evildoer”
“Resist” is vague and difficult to understand, because almost anything could be taken as resistance. But it is clear because of the law Jesus quotes in v. 38, that “resist” refers to personal acts of vengeance. The only difference between proper forms of resistance and improper forms is motivation. Yet again we see Jesus getting at the heart of the matter. Paul reiterates this 1 Thes. 5:15
See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone.
Paul understands this “resistance” as “repaying evil.” One can resist by legal action and be justified. “Do not resist” does not mean “become a doormat and allow evildoers to abuse you without any recourse.” Sometimes when Paul was abused by authorities he endured it. Other times, he mentioned that he was a Roman citizen. But never do we see it recorded that he attempted to exact revenge.
Then Jesus gives three examples: physical violence at the end of verse 39, legal challenge in v. 40, and political oppression in v. 41. In each of these examples, Jesus commands is followers not to retaliate. Not to treat others as they have treated us.
Then v. 42 seems to be thrown on there strangely. “Give to the one who begs.” There were teachers of the law in that day who commanded not to give to your enemy because then your enemy can overpower you. In each of the examples you see “Turn the other,” “have the cloak as well,” and “go with him two.” The believer is not supposed to respond to the evil actions with revenge and spite but with generosity.
Why? Because Jesus is redefining for his audience what it means for someone to be their enemy and their neighbor.
Jesus forbids seeing anyone as a personal enemy.
And maybe we need a similar redefinition in our day. We’re living in a culture that wants to vilify everyone and everything. White people are the enemy. Christians are the enemy. Homosexuals and transgenders are the enemy. Democrats, republicans are the enemy. Illegal aliens are the enemy.
And then when we get that in our mind, that’s how we treat them! Especially if one of those “enemies” does us wrong personally. We will go to no end to undo them and destroy them.
Are people out there wrong? Are people out there sinners? Yes. But how do we face their wickedness against us? With generosity.
If there was anyone who has the right to view us as enemy it’s God.
Created in his image. Destined to rule the earth. But then rebelled and attempted to usurp the divine throne.
Higher authority illus?
How did God respond to us?
“For God so loved the world that he gave”
